Conference tecrus::mormonism

    re:    Note 21.0 by IOSG::VICKERS 

    Hi Paul,
    
>   Hi, just a simple question -
>   does the Mormon church forbid drinking of alcohol ?

    In 1833, Joseph Smith received a revelation commonly referred to
    in the church as "The Word of Wisdom". The prophet had been concerned
    about the use of tobacco in their meetings. He inquired of the Lord
    concerning it, and received this revelation.
    
    In the revelation, the Lord gives various health related instructions,
    including some do's and some dont's, and a promise.
    
    Do's
    ----
    
    Wholesome herbs, fruits and vegetables, and grains are ordained
    for the use of man. Meat should be eaten sparingly.
    
    Dont's
    ------
    
    Alcoholic beverages, tobacco, hot drinks (meaning coffee and tea)
    are not good for the body and should not be used.
    
    The Promise
    -----------
    
    The Lord gave this promise to those who would keep this "Word of
    Wisdom":
    
         And all saints who remember to keep and do these sayings,
         walking in obedience to the commandments shall receive health
         in their navel and marrow to their bones; and shall find
         wisdom and great treasures of knowledge, even hidden
         treasures; and shall run and not be weary, and shall walk and
         not faint. And I, the Lord, give unto them a promise, that
         the destroying angel shall pass by them, as the children of
         Israel, and not slay them. Amen. (Doctrine and Covenants
         89:18-21)

    To be considered to be in good standing in the church, a member must
    abstain from alcohol, tobacco, coffee and tea. By observing the Word of
    Wisdom, as well as by abstaining from immoral sexual acts, we show
    respect for the temple of our Spirit, our body, and we keep it clean
    and healthy. 
    
    Witnessing of Christ,
    Rich
    
                

    
    Thanks Rich, 
    I wondered where that doctrine came from as for the life of me I
    could not remember any commandments to refrain from taking alcohol in
    the Bible.
    
    Do you know why hot drinks were deemed a 'bad thing' ? This one
    has me confused greatly. I can understand the ones about alcohol
    for it is so easy to slip into alcohol abuse, and I can understand
    the one about smoking for the obvious health reasons, but hot drinks
    has me stumped. Is it all hot drinks (as the word of wisdom seems
    to suggest) or is it just tea and coffee ?
    
    Yours confusedly,
    Paul V

    In the Bible (i.e. not P.O.G.P, B.O.M. ect.) we find that Jesus
    and the apostles drank wine, not grape juice - WINE!  We also find
    warnings in the Bible about becoming a drunkard.  So what is the
    example being set for us here.  I don't think it takes a master-
    mind to figure it out.
    
    As for coffee and tea being disallowed, that's just plain ludicrous.
    
    What do we learn from Joseph Smith's revelation: that he was obviously
    out to lunch.  What's amazing is that he got so many people fooled
    into this legalistic hype.

Re < Note 21.2 by IOSG::VICKERS "Il n'y a qu'un dieu" >

Hi Paul,
    
>    Do you know why hot drinks were deemed a 'bad thing' ? This one
>    has me confused greatly. I can understand the ones about alcohol
>    for it is so easy to slip into alcohol abuse, and I can understand
>    the one about smoking for the obvious health reasons, but hot drinks
>    has me stumped.

The Church has never tried to define why alcohol, tobacco, tea, and coffee
are harmful, nor did the Lord in the revelation.  Thus, we have to draw
upon current medical knowledge for possible ideas.  It is important for
us Latter-day Saints to realize that the Lord did not say don't drink
"hot drinks" because of caffeine or some other ingredient; He just said
they were "not for man".  We can speculate about caffeine or other ingredients,
but we need to realize that we are speculating.  We accept tea and coffee as
being harmful on faith and our personal prayer and are content to let the
future bring out reasons.


> Is it all hot drinks (as the word of wisdom seems
>    to suggest) or is it just tea and coffee ?
    
When Joseph Smith recorded the revelation, he used the phrase "hot drinks".
That phrase was interpreted by him and other Church leaders at that time to
mean tea and coffee.  That meaning to the phrase has been used by the
Church since that time and is in use today.  Thus, the four things
prohibited that were mentioned by Rich are alcohol, tobacco, tea, and coffee.

Obviously, there are many other substances that one might consume that are
believed by medical people to be harmful.  The Church has never added other
things to the list of four. Instead, they tell us to use our own intelligence
and make our own decisions about things.  I think they are trying to avoid
having the Word of Wisdom become like the Law came, a list of many do's and
don'ts which people follow without understanding the spirit of the law.  Also,
the Lord wants us to become capable of making our own decisions about things
and being accountable to Him for those decisions (Joseph Smith described his
philosophy of leadership as 'teaching principles of righteousness and letting
the Saints govern themselves').

Our health code is one of the more obvious things that makes us Mormons a bit
different than others.

Allen

    
    Was the tone of that note .3 *really* appropriate ?
    I greatly value the opportunity to discuss doctrinal differences
    in a rational, calm manner and would hate to see this topic dissolve
    into a mud slinging match.
    
    Does the tone of the MANILA::DEERE's note not just reduce the position
    of the anti-Mormon doctrine side to the level of incredulity which
    it ascribes to the Mormons' position ?
    
    Come on, let's be civilised about this folks.
    
    Paul V

    >>                      -< After that interruption... >-
    
    Excuse me...
    
    >>Was the tone of that note .3 *really* appropriate ?
    >>I greatly value the opportunity to discuss doctrinal differences
    >>in a rational, calm manner and would hate to see this topic dissolve
    >>into a mud slinging match.
    
    First of all, what's the definition of "*really* appropriate". 
    If the Mormon church says that coffee an tea (or beer) was not
    meant for me, I find that irrational.  So I _calmly_ responded
    in a irrational way.  No mud slinging, just opinions and facts.
    
    >>Does the tone of the MANILA::DEERE's note not just reduce the position
    >>of the anti-Mormon doctrine side to the level of incredulity which
    >>it ascribes to the Mormons' position ?
    
    Please forgive me, but because I wasn't acting as a Mormon? Why
    can't I just be myself.  
    
    

Re < Note 21.6 by MANILA::DEERE "Micro Empire" >

Hi,

>    If the Mormon church says that coffee an tea (or beer) was not
>    meant for me, I find that irrational.

You've brought up a good point.  The revelation which is recorded in
D & C 89 was addressed to "the Saints", that is the members of the
LDS Church, and I'm sorry that Rich and I implied that it was intended
for everyone.  

We consider it a commandment of God to us as Latter-day Saints to
abstain from the four items.  We do not consider it a commandment of God
to non-LDS, although my personal opinion is that others would benefit
from following the health code, but that is for them to decide.  In my
relationships with others, I try not to reflect my health standards upon
others.

Allen
    

    Re: Note 21.2 by Paul Vickers

    Hi Paul,
        
    I would like to add here that in the past few decades there has been a
    lot of scientific evidence that seems to show health hazards in the
    consumption of coffee and tea. That is one of ther reasons for a
    booming market for de-caffeinated products. Of course, this body of
    evidence, as well as evidence about the use of alcohol and tobacco, did
    not exist over 150 years ago, when the revelation was given. Who knows
    what future research might show? 
    
    I hasten to add that we do not follow this practice because of any
    scientific evidence, but because we believe it is a revelation from
    God for our benefit. We have faith that He wants to bless us, and
    is willing to reveal such things that can bless us, if we will ask,
    and if we will do it when He reveals it to us.
    
    Food for thought: How many millions of people who have suffered
    from health problems related to alcohol and tobacco, for example,
    could have been blessed by knowing about something like this earlier
    in their lives?
    
    Witnessing of Christ,
    Rich

    
    re .6
>    First of all, what's the definition of "*really* appropriate". 
>    If the Mormon church says that coffee an tea (or beer) was not
>    meant for me, I find that irrational.  So I _calmly_ responded
>    in a irrational way.  No mud slinging, just opinions and facts.

    Ok, maybe I read you wrong, but your note did come over as being
    very dismissive and in a way, offensive. I'm sorry if I've done
    you an injustice by thinking this as you may not have had that in
    mind when you wrote it. But as I have found to my own cost, the
    inflexion we read into a note when writing it is not always the
    same as that perceived by the reader. All to often a note which
    we entered in a calm, non derogatory manner is read in a quite
    different light. I know this because I've had people get upset at
    things I've written which were not intended to be taken the way
    they were read. 
    You say your note was calm, well, if you say so I'll accept that
    and apologise for taking it the wrong way. But what I would ask
    is that we ALL take care that something we write could be taken
    the wrong way.
    
    Thanks,
    Paul V
    
    p.s., I'm not a Mormon either.
    
    
    re .8, Rich
    
    Rich, I don't quite understand what you're driving at in the last
    paragraph, ie, how would people have  benefitted in the past for
    knowing what we know now. Do you mean they would have benefitted
    if they knew the health risks, or if they knew the 'revelation'
    to Joseph Smith ?
    
    Thanks,
    Paul V
    

    Re: 21.9 by Paul Vickers
    
>   Rich, I don't quite understand what you're driving at in the last
>   paragraph, ie, how would people have  benefited in the past for
>   knowing what we know now. Do you mean they would have benefited
>   if they knew the health risks, or if they knew the 'revelation'
>   to Joseph Smith ?
                   
    Hi Paul, 
    
    They would have benefited had they known the health risks. To me
    it's not important whether they would have learned it from scientific
    research or from revelation from God, they still would have benefited.
    The fact that Joseph Smith received a revelation over a hundred
    years before the scientific community came to this conclusion just
    would have/could have benefited that many more people, had they
    known of and accepted this revelation.
         
    In 1833, Joseph Smith received another revelation in which truth
    is defined:
         
         And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they
         were, and as they are to come.  D&C 93:24
         
    We can gain knowledge of the truth in many ways. Scientific research
    can be one source of truth, as can revelation from God. When God
    reveals something, it may well be something that mankind would or
    could have found out eventually on it's own, through "hard knocks",
    but often God shows forth the love of a wise Heavenly Father by
    trying to spare us a few of those "hard knocks", if we will heed
    his counsel.
    
    Witnessing of Christ,
    Rich

    Once I was in my neighborhood clinic last year for an annual check-up.
    On the wall of the waiting room were several health-related pamphlets
    on various subjects. Right next to each other I saw a pamphlet on
    alcohol, a pamphlet on tobacco, and another on caffeine. I flipped
    through the pamphlets and read all these horror stories of what
    can happen to people who use these products. Not just those who
    abuse them, but just regular users.
                                    
    I reflected on how loving and gracious Heavenly Father is for giving
    us this guidance 150 years ago, long before all this medical evidence
    was known. He did not ask us to understand biochemistry first ;-), He
    just said abstain from these things and you will be blessed for
    it. Now we know the wisdom of this instruction.
    
    In these days when heart disease is the number one killer in America,
    the LDS population suffers from a heart disease rate that is roughly
    half of the general population. I have no doubt that the rate would
    be even smaller if more members followed this councel more faithfully.
    And I have no doubt - because it is now medically proven - that
    such blessings would be extended to all, if all would listen to
    this councel.
    
    While the Word of Wisdom does tend to set Mormons apart somewhat,
    I find that the social liabilities in being obviously 'religious'
    are outweighed - by several orders of magnitude - by the benefits
    the Lord has promised us for obedience. Not the least of which is
    increased spirituality which comes from keeping a more fit tabernacle
    in which the Spirit may dwell.
    
    If someone wants to indulge, that is certainly each person's decision,
    and it is not my business to tell them what to do. But the essential
    message of the Word of Wisdom - and the Mormon Church in general - is
    that the Lord wants to bless us. He wants to bless us more, perhaps,
    than we can understand at the moment. 
    
    Such was the case with the early Mormons who did not understand why
    such things were harmful. The Lord might as well have come out and said
    'Don't consume anything that's purple' for all the sense it made at the
    moment. But the Saints began to obey, and were blessed for it. Now
    there is less mystery invloved, because we have developed our medical
    knowledge to the point where we can begin to understand the Lord's
    concern. But same blessings are no less available to us today. 
    
    /kevin 

    Jesus and the apostles drank wine.  I don't believe they were
    drunkards, and I believe they were fully aware of what they were
    doing, because books like Proverbs pointed out the hazards. 
    Recent medical studies aren't any better than Proverbs to point
    out that alchohol has it's shortcomings.  
    
    I also happen to believe that Jesus Christ is God, and even by
    definition of Mormon doctrine Jesus is part of the "Godhead".
    
    Why would Jesus drink, and then 1800 years later Joseph S. gets a
    revalation?  Looks like a "parity error" to me.
    
    With a little imagination, I can picture the apostles as the type
    of unrefined people who might have even (God forbid) drank coffee
    if such a thing had been around - despite it's potential health
    hazard.
    
    Calmly (and rationally),
    Rik  
    

>    Why would Jesus drink, and then 1800 years later Joseph S. gets a
>    revalation?  Looks like a "parity error" to me.
     
    I think we would all agree that things today are a bit different
    from the first century. Back then they did not have the same number
    or kinds of dangerous devices for self-destruction that we have
    today, nor did they have the kind of culture that deliberately promotes
    such things as smoking, hard liquor, or illegal drugs. The revelation
    received by Joseph Smith was meant for the people of *this* era. That
    is why it was given in this era: as a protection against some of
    this era's problems. D&C 89:4 says "In consequence of evils and
    designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men
    in the last days, I have warned you, and forewarn you, by giving
    unto you this word of wisdom by revelation -"
    
    Another thing too is that Joseph Smith *asked*. God has a history
    of providing guidance for those who ask for it. God will not beat
    people over the head with His love and councel if they don't want
    it.
    
>    With a little imagination, I can picture the apostles as the type
>    of unrefined people who might have even (God forbid) drank coffee
>    if such a thing had been around - despite it's potential health
>    hazard.

    My impression of this comment is that you think Mormons think those
    who chose to imbibe are less refined or something. Probably some
    think that way. I do not. The Church as a whole does not consider
    itself 'better' than anyone because of its beliefs or practices.
    Every single one of us on this earth is as much a Child of God as
    anyone else.
    
    In explaining to people why I abstain from certain things, I often have
    the problem of going beyond just the thing itself. I have given up
    certain things, like alcohol, for certain much better things, like
    increased spirituality. The Word of Wisdom is not a scolding about evil
    practices. It is an invitation to receive blessings. 

    It is very difficult sometimes to be obedient to the Word of Wisdom.
    Sometimes it is necessary to pray for strength to overcome temptation.
    But through the experience we learn much about obedience, prayer,
    strength, and temptation, as well as temporal blessings. 
    
    
    With Christ's love,
    /kevin
                                                         

    
    re .13
>    nor did they have the kind of culture that deliberately promotes
>    such things as smoking, hard liquor, or illegal drugs.

    No ? I thought the Roman empire was a pretty decadent one which
    went in for drunken orgies and the like.
    
    Paul V

    I understand that Mormons do not eat anything with caffeine in it.
    Why is this?
    

    I'm not Mormon but I also wondered why.  Especially since Brigham
    Young declared in 1857 (as recorded in the Journal of Discourses,
    Vol. 5, p. 98): " Should not I take my TEA and COFFEE, my beef and
    pork, and every other GOOD THING, and put it into the hands of the
    men who sweat over the rock for the Temple, instead of feeding men,
    women, and children, who do not strive to do all they are capable
    of doing?" 
    
    Sounds okay to me!
        

    Hi Paul,
    
    I've enjoyed your responses in this conference very much. I look
    forward to continued dialogue.
                                  

    >>nor did they have the kind of culture that deliberately promotes
    >>such things as smoking, hard liquor, or illegal drugs.
    >
    >    No ? I thought the Roman empire was a pretty decadent one which
    >    went in for drunken orgies and the like.
    >
    > Paul V
    
    Very true, but if I may say, that wasn't the point. Whenever God's
    Church has been established on the earth, it has been faced with its
    own particular set of challenges, for which God provides particular
    help and guidance. The manna in the desert was an example of a
    particular assistance sent to help with a particular problem. This
    particular assistance has not been repeated - to my knowledge - since
    that time, even though there are some places in the world, now and in
    the past, where it would have been most helpful. 
    
    The early Christians had their own problems too, like genocide,
    slavery, etc. My guess is that Roman decadence was not high on their
    list of Major Challenges To Spirituality. 
                                       
    Today, Satan uses substance abuse to capture souls in ways undreamed of
    ten years ago, let alone two thousand. There are dramatic examples,
    such as the babies now being born with drug addictions because their
    mothers were addicts. But there are more subtle examples also of people
    who are impeded in achieving everything God had in mind for them
    because of their dependence on something. 
    
    It is a wise and loving God who receives prayers such as the prayer
    Joseph Smith offered, and responds with necessary guidance. If God
    exists, as I believe He does, and if He speaks to prophets today,
    as I believe He does, then if He had anything worthwhile to say in this
    day and age, wouldn't He say something about using self-destructive
    substances? 
    
    Standing All Amazed At Jesus' Love,
    /kevin

    re:15
    
      In point of fact, the bible does make repeated references to the
    dangers of substance abuse. Excess of alcohol (drunkedness) is
    constantly pointed to as sin, whereas moderation (or "temperance",
    for those of you who don't define temperance as total abstinance)
    is regarded as the Godly standard.
      Substance abuse in regards to food is also a sin (gluttony), but
    this hardly makes the moderated ingestion of food a sin.
      Furthermore, why would Jesus set an example for his people by
    moderating his intake of alcohol, only to turn around and charge
    them to not follow his example?
      If the Book of Mormon only agrees with what has been written in
    scripture, then you can make a good case for it, but, when it
    starts to invalidate what was previously written, it seems like
    you're walking on shaky ground.   
    
    
                                                                Chuck

    
    re .15
    Hi Kevin, 
    I've enjoyed taking part too and reading your replies.
    
    Now then,
>    Joseph Smith offered, and responds with necessary guidance. If God
>    exists, as I believe He does, and if He speaks to prophets today,
>    as I believe He does, then if He had anything worthwhile to say in this
>    day and age, wouldn't He say something about using self-destructive
>    substances? 


    Very possibly, but I wouldn't say that He definitely would or wouldn't.
    For there are other (potentially) dangerous things like TV etc which
    I don't think He has made a policy decision about. I reckon it boils
    back down to the personal relationship again - ie, trust God to
    tell ME what's wrong for ME. If I follow that then I can be sure
    that I am doing what He wants.
    
    Paul V..

Re < Note 21.17 by IOSG::VICKERS "Il n'y a qu'un dieu" >

Good morning Paul (Well, Good afternoon in your time)

>    Very possibly, but I wouldn't say that He definitely would or wouldn't.
>    For there are other (potentially) dangerous things like TV etc which
>    I don't think He has made a policy decision about. I reckon it boils
>    back down to the personal relationship again - ie, trust God to
>    tell ME what's wrong for ME. If I follow that then I can be sure
>    that I am doing what He wants.
    
Yes, personal relationships are very important.  We read the scriptures
for guidance, but the bottom line is our personal prayer and our
relationship with Him.

In .4 I made a comment which is pertinent to your comment about other
dangerous things.

    Also, the Lord wants us to become capable of making our own decisions
    about things and being accountable to Him for those decisions (Joseph
    Smith described his philosophy of leadership as 'teaching principles of
    righteousness and letting the Saints govern themselves').

Allen

    Re: Note 36.0 by LABC::FRIEDMAN 

>    I understand that Mormons do not eat anything with caffeine in it.
>    Why is this?
    
    The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints enjoins it's members
    from the use of coffee, tea, alcoholic beverages, and the use of
    tobacco. To be a member in good standing, one must refrain from the use
    of these substances. The reason for this is that Joseph Smith received
    a revelation in which the saints (members) were told to avoid these
    things. This revelation is referred to in the church as The Word of
    Wisdom. At first, it was given only as counsel, and not by way of
    commandment. Later, the church leaders reemphasized it's importance and
    it is now regarded as a binding principle for faithful members of the
    church. 
    
    It should also be mentioned that, in the revelation, the Lord gives
    this as a "principle with a promise", promising increased health
    and strength to those who choose to obey it. This was given some
    150 years ago, prior to the advent of supporting scientific evidence.
    Demographic studies show that members of the church do exhibit lower
    incidence of many common health problems.
    
    In addition, the church advises church members to choose wisely what we
    take into our bodies, and to avoid consuming any harmful substances,
    especially those that can be addicting, or habit forming. Besides
    coffee and tea, other products containing caffeine are not specifically
    prohibited, but many members choose to avoid these products, because
    they regard them to be potentially harmful. For example, I choose to
    avoid soft drinks containing caffeine, because I don't like the effect
    of the stimulant, and I've seen many people who seem bound to their
    "habit" of these drinks. 
    
    This topic is also discussed in relation to alcohol in topic 21.
    
    Witnessing of Christ,
    Rich
    

    
    Hi Rich,
    
    one thing I still don't understand is the interpretation of J Smith's
    word of wisdom. You said that God told him to refrain from hot drinks
    which Smith and the others interpreted as just Coffee and Tea. Why
    was it limited to coffee and tea when 'hot drinks' implies many
    more beverages than just those two ?
    
    Paul V

Re .1

>    I'm not Mormon but I also wondered why.  Especially since Brigham
>    Young declared in 1857 (as recorded in the Journal of Discourses,
>    Vol. 5, p. 98): " Should not I take my TEA and COFFEE, my beef and
>    pork, and every other GOOD THING, and put it into the hands of the
>    men who sweat over the rock for the Temple, instead of feeding men,
>    women, and children, who do not strive to do all they are capable
>    of doing?" 

The Ensign is a monthly magazine published for adults.  The following
appeared in the April 1977 issue, p. 32, in a section called "I Have A
Question".

"Have the Saints always given as much emphasis to the word of wisdom as they do
today?

"Leonard J. Arrington, Church Historian: Many present-day members of the Church,
in reading the diaries, letters, and histories of their grandparents and
great-grandparents, have discovered that even those who were staunch members
of the Church occasionally mention use of tea, coffee, tobacco, and intoxicating
drinks.  Even after the publication of the revelation called the Word of Wisdom
in 1835, a number of loyal members continued to indulge in some of these habits
despite the Lord's counsel against it.

"We should not be surprised at their doing so, because at that time some of them
apparently felt that the revelation meant simply a word of advice and
counsel--"not by commandment or constraint" (D & C 89:2)--somewhat on the order
of "get plenty of sleep" and "don't eat too much"....

"It was in the 1920s under the inspiration of President Heber J. Grant, that
the Church as a whole began to consistently regard the revelation not only as
"the order and will of God" but also a binding principle.  From that time
forward Church leaders have uniformly and consistently insisted on obedience
to the revelation--refraining from the use of tea, coffee, tobacco, and
intoxicating beverages--as a condition of holding local leadership positions.
And from that time forward, compliance with the ban on coffee, tea, alcohol,
and tobacco has been considered essential to ordination to the Melchizedek
Priesthood, obtaining recommends to the temple, and participating in other
ordinances and responsibilities.

"We should not be impatient with the Word of Wisdom lapses of early Church
members.  Certainly there is no reason for us to be ashamed of them.  They
lived before the revelation was considered binding, and they acted upon the
light and understanding which they had.  Some of them observed the Word of
Wisdom very carefully; others were less scrupulous in this one area but
demonstrated their loyalty and goodness in countless other ways.  And the
Saints as a whole were much more temperate than nineteenth-century persons
generally.  Travelers to Latter-day Saint communities in the last century
praised the temperance and moderation of the Saints.  Extreme abuses,
particularly drunkenness, were never at any time tolerated among the Saints.

"The Lord adds to the Saints' understanding constantly through the prophet and
other leaders he calls.  The early Saints struggled through terrible
adversities and laid the great foundation of faith that is our heritage.  They
should be honored and appreciated for their faithfulness to the laws that
God revealed to them.  At the same time we should be grateful for any
additional understanding that adds to our happiness and spiritual growth."

    Re: Note 36.3 by IOSG::VICKERS 

    Hi Paul,
        
>   one thing I still don't understand is the interpretation of J Smith's
>   word of wisdom. You said that God told him to refrain from hot drinks
>   which Smith and the others interpreted as just Coffee and Tea. Why
>   was it limited to coffee and tea when 'hot drinks' implies many
>   more beverages than just those two ?
    
    Yes 'hot drinks' does imply more. With the gospel we can ask many "why"
    questions that we don't have all the answers to. My own personal
    opinion is that coffee and tea were the principal hot drinks in use at
    the time, and so the term 'hot drinks' may have clear at the time. Sort
    of like the term 'drugs' used to be clearly in reference to medicine,
    but has come to mean 'illicit drugs' as well. 
    
    My opinion, again, is that the greatest harm in coffee and tea, like
    alcohol and tobacco, is the habit-forming characteristic. To see folks
    who can't function without that "first cup", who deal with stress by
    consuming more, and who get headaches when they don't have any, is
    evidence enough to me that coffee and tea enslave, to a degree, the
    bodies of those that use them. Perhaps what the Lord is really saying
    in the Word of Wisdom is, "avoid the use of things that enslave the
    body". 
    
    Witnessing of Christ,
    Rich
    
          

    from the fwiw department...
    according to a class i took on alcohol abuse,Catholics and Mormons
    have the highest rates of alcohol abuse and Jewish people the lowest.
    Mormons also have the lowest rate of recovery because they are mostly
    "closet drinkers".
    please dont shout at me,it was just what i learned in a class.
    
    kelly

    Did a study in college once on alcohol, what I saw in my study was
    that Jews, because the culture used alcohol in a religious manner,
    had the lowest rate, and the highest was amongst those that felt
    their life was so restricted that it was their only form of rebelling,
    the example of the group with the highest rate given was the Native 
    Americans on reservations.  Now I lived in Utah before I became
    LDS, and I would not be able to confirm nor deny from observation
    the validity of the information given in your class, but I can tell
    you there are not many LDS that attend church and live the gospel
    that drink, let alone abuse any drug.  And I think that similar
    things can be said of Native Americans and Catholics.  

    
    Did you know that the AA says the only way to beat alcoholism is
    to replace it with religion.  Maybe the reverse may be true, but
    I doubt it.  And I doubt if scientific studies have been done to
    that effect.

    sorry,i did not mean to imply that religion caused alcohol abuse.
    
    A.A. does not say that the only way to get sober is to find religion.
    it basically says to find a higher power,a higher could be your
    sponsor or A.A itself.i cant really discribe it,it just says that
    it might be easier to stay sober with a higher power,what ever we
    may call him/her/it.
    
    i dont suppose that you would see many mormons drunk if they are
    closet drinkers.
    lets say that there are a few Mormons that are alcoholics,it seems
    to me that that the Mormon Church would make it awfully hard to
    come out in the open and ask for help.
    
    kelly

    >it
    >seems to me that that the Mormon Church would make it awfully hard to
    >come out in the open and ask for help. 
    
    God is Love. Where you find love is where you find God, and
    where you find God is where you find love.
    
    To the extent that Mormons, or anyone, love and reach out to those
    with problems, they are following Christ. To the extent that they
    don't, they aren't.
    
    I have seen so many times when members of our local ward (congregation)
    have shown a Christ-like love for others with problems, and done
    whatever is necessary to help them overcome. Like some of our Cambodian
    refugees who now live in Lowell. Like some who barely escaped their
    homeland after seeing several of their children brutalized and murdered
    before their eyes. 
    
    I think we have it in our hearts to help alcoholics. Alcoholism isn't
    the kind of 'scandal' it used to be. It's tough to be scandalized
    anymore. 
    
    My apologies for the negative tone of this reply.
    
                                                         
    /kevin

    Your right, by religious I meant a belief in a higher power. I imagine
    one could even go into politics.  I guess I was using religion
    in the generic sense.  The way I read the pamphlet was you had to
    replace one zealousness with another.  You don't have to join a
    church.
    
    The Church does not make it hard for one to come out of the closet.
    People may make it that way either for others or for themselves,
    but the Church does not.  And I also think that if a leader was
    doing their job, they would have some indication of a problem and
    work with the individual or advise them to seek professional help.
    Such as the LDS Social Services, which has offices in most areas
    of the country.  
    
    I am not saying, BTW, that there are not people who when asked to
    fill in the form, check off or write down Mormon and who drink or
    abuse alcohol.  In fact when I was in Utah I had more than one such
    friend.  There are plenty of clubs and bars in Utah.  But those
    same friends were with me on Sunday racing motorcycles or other such
    activities and not in church.  And I also saw their home teachers
    and other church leaders love them and try to encourage them to
    do what my friends knew was right.  I never saw or heard anyone
    being given a hard time.  In fact I was directly responsible for
    one individual to start drinking after he had been on the wagon
    for awhile.  It was while I was still in the AF and doing temp duty
    in Taiwan.  The local leader there (an  AF officer)did what I think
    any good leader would have done, he invited us both to dinner at
    his house and made sure we both understood he did not condemn either
    of us for what each had done.  Impressed me.

    The issues of alcoholism and chemical dependency are a big part
    of my life right now.  I know more about these issues than I'd care
    to know . . . but on the other hand, the knowledge has definitely
    benefitted me in my life.
    
    As I mentioned in my introductory note, I am the only Church member
    in my family; therefore, I am the only one who lives the Word of
    Wisdom in my life.
    
    My brother, who is 15 years old, will be getting out of a chemical
    dependency unit next week.  He's been in there since December 6th.
    This is the second time he's been through "treatment" - the first
    time being last summer.  After he got out the first time, he was
    able to stay off the drugs and alcohol for about three weeks.  Then
    he relapsed.
    
    During the fall, my brother spent at least 4 weeks in jail, one
    week in a foster home, 3 weeks on the road (ran away from home).
    He went to court and was cited with 7 counts of burglary - only
    1 of which held up for sentencing.  He will have to repeat the 9th 
    grade next year at a new school. 
    
    I'm not telling this information for any sort of sympathy -but rather
    to suggest that the use of alcohol or any addictive substance is
    deadly.  It kills lives - maybe not physically all the time, but
    emotionally, socially, and spiritually as well.  The four items
    mentioned in the Word of Wisdom - alcohol, tobacco, coffee, and
    tea - are all addictive substances.  Any of these substances can
    be used *in moderation* without establishing an addiction - but
    how much is *in moderation*?  Wouldn't you have to become addicted
    to find out what the difference was between feeling addicted and
    feeling not addicted?  Don't you have to experience the bad to
    appreciate the good?
    
    A few replies back touched upon what A.A. had to say.  I am not
    a member of A.A., but I do belong to Al Anon - a group for families and
    friends of alcoholics.  In all these groups - A.A., Al Anon, ACA,
    OA, SA, GA, etc. - a Twelve Step program is followed.  These Twelve
    Steps help the member learn how to live and enjoy life for the first
    time in their lives basically.  
    
    None of these groups have a religious affiliation.  These groups
    are for the *spiritual* growth of the members, not religious.  There 
    *is* a difference between being religious and being spiritual.
    Members are encouraged to believe in a power greater than themselves, 
    referred to as a Higher Power. For me, my "Higher Power" is my
    Heavenly Father.
    
    Paraphasing the first three steps of the Twelve Step program, the
    first step tells us that we cannot overcome our addiction (whatever
    it may be) by ourselves.  The second step suggests that our Higher
    Power can help us.  And Step 3 is allowing our Higher Power to help
    us - surrendering our will to Him.  Isn't this what the gospel is
    all about?  We are human; we are imperfect; we need God's help and
    guidance; but it's up to us to ask for His help.  Ask, and ye shall
    receive.  Don't ask - you won't receive.
    
    I have a strong testimony of the Word of Wisdom.  I've seen what
    the effects of not living this law has done to my family.  Every
    one in my family - my mom, my dad, my brother, my sister, and I
    - are struggling hard to overcome the vicious past so that we can enjoy
    the wonderful tomorrows ahead of us.
    
    I apologize for the length of this entry - I just wanted to share
    this with you in the conference.
    
    Tamara
    
    

I read an interesting article the other day.  It seems there are two places
where fat collects in your body--near the skin and inside.  The skin fat
isn't very dangerous in terms of heart disease, but the internal fat is.

Women tend to put their fat on their hips, but this fat is skin fat.  Men,
on the other hand, tend to put their fat on their stomachs, and this fat
is internal and dangerous.

Researchers are developing a metric that allows us to determine if our
fat is dangerous:  measure your waist and your hips and calculate the ratio
of waist/hips to see if you're over a danger-threshold.  For women, the
threshold is 0.75-0.8, and for men it is 0.85-0.9.  If you're over, you're
getting too much fat on your stomach and are increasing the risk of heart
disease.

    RE: .0
    
    I really question the validity of such a test. Take a man with a
    36" hip measurement and a 34" waist measurement. This equates to
    a 'risk factor' of .944, or in the alledged danger zone. This in
    no way proves that the individual is, or is not at risk of being
    subject to heart disease.
    
    A better and more accurate measure is to have a simple blood test.
    
    Charlie

Hi Charlie,

You've brought out a good point.  The test I mentioned only gives a ballpark
indication of body fat, and does not indicate whether the person is at risk
for heart disease, that is, the effect of fat on each person may be different.

In the example you gave, the person has a "fat ratio" of 0.944, indicating
that he or she has more stomach fat than he or she should have, based on the
idea that stomach fat is more dangerous than hip fat.  Whether that extra fat
is dangerous to that person is another matter.

If anyone is interested in reading the article, it's in the current issue
of Readers Digest.

Allen

    RE: .2
    
    Sorry Allen, didn't mean to come across so negative. However, rereading
    .0 you seem to strongly suggest a link between the two. Perhaps there
    may be some tie between subcutaneous stomach area fat [which is not 
    internal fat BTW] but I'll have to read the article first. Thanks
    for the pointer.
    
    Charlie

    Ladies and Gentlemen,
    
    I'm glad that the subject of 'FAT' has been brought up in this
    conference.
    
    Ever since I joined THE true church, and even prior to that fateful day
    in 1986, I have been puzzled with one subject that has always bugged
    me.  
    
    The church has taught and teaches many good and important things for
    each of us to learn and ponder and excercise in our individual lives.
    I for one am very pleased with the good and wonderful teachings that I
    have learned thus far and I continue to become more educated about
    more and more subjects as time pushes forward.
    
    Somewhere in the busy life I lead I've forgotten or have not learned
    the church policy regarding proper physical care of our bodies.  In
    particular, I've been to many different wards on the east coast and 
    found many FAT people in every congregation, mostly the women.  To carry
    a little extra weight around seems not to pose any potential problems,
    but excessive weight - obesity - which seems to be popular, is where I
    can forsee problems.  Not only is your body being greatly taxed, but
    suppose there is an emergency and one is unable to get out, or away, or
    up, or down, or on, or in, etcetra.  It would seem to me that the
    church would stress more earnestly our personal fitness so that we may
    be not only mentally preparred for anything, but also physically
    preparred so that we might be more able to help others in need as well
    as ourselves.
    
    Does the church have an organized fitness program for all to heed?
    
    I know the Word of Wisdom contains great truths to follow - is everyone
    heeding all of the advice contained within D&C 89?  Or just some?? 
    
    My apologies to anyone whom I may have offended.  I simply wish to find
    out more about this topic that has bothered me for so long.
    
    Your inputs are much welcomed.
    
    Sincerely,
    
    Steve

    Re: Note 261.4 by MEMORY::POALETTI

    Hi Steve,
    
>   It would seem to me that the
>   church would stress more earnestly our personal fitness so that we may
>   be not only mentally preparred for anything, but also physically
>   preparred so that we might be more able to help others in need as well
>   as ourselves.
    
    In my 36 years of experience in the church, there have been *many*
    occasions where I have heard church leaders and teachers teach the
    church members to take proper care of their bodies by participating
    in exercise, proper diet, and abstaining from harmful substances.
    
    There have been numerous articles in the Ensign on this subject, as
    well. One of my favorites was written a few years back by Dr. Garth
    Fisher of BYU, who has been very deeply involved in research on this
    subject. An outgrowth of his research is a weight control program
    commercially marketed by Sybervision, called The Neuropsychology of
    Weight Control. I am currently following this program, and have lost 16
    pounds since mid-July. (Don't cheer yet, I've got another 15 to
    go to reach my goal!)
    
>   Does the church have an organized fitness program for all to heed?

    There is no particular exercise or diet program promoted by the church.
    That is left to the individual member to "learn correct principles and
    then to govern himself", as Joseph Smith taught. Even so, I submit that
    the church has been energetic in trying to teach the members to pay
    proper attention to all areas of personal and family welfare, including
    spiritual, physical, financial, emotional, and social welfare. 
    
>   I know the Word of Wisdom contains great truths to follow - is everyone
>   heeding all of the advice contained within D&C 89?  Or just some?? 
    
    Since we believe in free agency, even for the members :-), some
    do, and some don't!
    
    Rich

    Hi Rich,
    
    Can you say a few words about the Neuropsychology programme.  Are
    you finding it tough or easy?  Is it slow or quick?  Do you develop
    permanent good dietary habits?
    
    I'm interested because I'd like to lose 28 lbs.
    
    Regards,
    
    Theo  

    When we were at BYU my wife took some courses dealing with nutrition
    and the body.  There is a book put out by Garthe Fisher which talks
    about the hypothalmus gland.  Basically, it says this gland is like a
    thermostat which regulates what happens in our bodies.  If a person
    goes on a diet and only eats 1 meal a day, this gland tells the body
    how to adjust and handle 1 meal a day.  In other words, the body gets
    used to surviving on one meal a day after doing it a while.  The
    conclusion from what wifey told me was to eat regular meals and
    exercise regularly.  The bottom line is to do what makes sense, burn up
    more than you take in.  Also, it is best to take it gradually and not
    starve yourself.  It took X years to get that way and it should not be
    done in X minutes.
    
    scott _who_is_married_to_a_pe_graduate_
    

    Re: Note 261.6 by KERNEL::BARTLEY

    Hi Theo,
    
>   Can you say a few words about the Neuropsychology programme.  
    
    Due to a lack of time, I will point you to the ATSE::WEIGHTLOSS
    conference, topic 111, where I have presented the basics of this
    program.
    
>   Are you finding it tough or easy?  Is it slow or quick?  Do you develop
>   permanent good dietary habits?
    
    On this program, you develop excellent weight control habits. It is
    against the principles of this program to be hungry all the time. It is
    not tough from that aspect, but it does require you to exercise and eat
    the right foods, which takes some discipline. I first bought the
    program three years ago and have been on and off a few times. This time
    I am having the best success I've had so far, and so is my wife. Fast
    or slow are relative terms. I've lost 16 pounds in 7 weeks, which seems
    fast to me, but not fast enough, of course. 
    
    Good luck on losing your weight. I'd be glad to answer any other
    questions you might have. 
    
    Rich

RE: <<< Note 261.4 by MEMORY::POALETTI >>>

>    Does the church have an organized fitness program for all to heed?
    
Steve,

In my "Chart of Calls," there is an entry for a Physical Activities 
Director, at both the Stake and Ward levels. They are to operate under the 
direction of the Stake/Ward Activities Chairman.

There must be some kind of statement as to what this calling entails. Also, 
Given the never-fails-to-surprise-me degree of organization in this Church, 
there may even be a manual.

Contact your local Ward or Stake Activities Chairman to see what info may 
exist about Church fitness programs. There may at least be some kind of 
statement of goals for a local Physical Activities Chairman.

/kevin

    re:261.9
    
    Thank You for your input Kevin.
    
    Steve

    I have found a little time to explain the basics of the weight control
    program that I mentioned earlier, as Theo asked me to in 261.6, for
    those who might be interested. The name of the program is
    "Neuropsychology of Weight Control - Setpoint Dynamics", by
    SyberVision. 
    
    It consists of a set of audio tapes and a workbook that I bought about
    three years ago for $65. I have seen it marketed on television
    recently, as well as in the in-flight airline magazines. 
    
    The approach is based on research (some of which was done by Dr. Garth
    Fisher at BYU), that shows that "starvation type" dieting (dieting by
    restricting caloric intake) actually leads to a long term increase in
    the percentage of body fat, because most people lose weight on such
    diets, but then almost always their body's defenses against starvation
    force them to go off the diet, and they gain the weight back. The
    problem is that on such diets, they lose both lean and fat tissue, but
    when they gain it back, they put on mostly fat, leaving them fatter
    than they started. 
    
    This program says not to "diet" per se, but to change the body's "set
    point". This is a level of fat that your body will fight to maintain,
    similar to the way that a thermostat kicks in to maintain a certain
    temperature. There are things that raise the set point, and things that
    lower the set point. This program is supposed to focus on the things
    that will lower your set point, which are: 
                       
    30-60 minutes of daily exercise (brisk walking is recommended) 
    
    Eat less than 20% of your calories as fat (most Americans eat 40%+) 
    
    Eat very little refined carbohydrates (things made of white sugar and
    white flour). Do eat lots of complex carbohydrates (grain, fruit,
    vegetables, etc.).
    
    Drink at least six glasses of water per day (no pop, not even diet
    pop!) 
    
    Do NOT skip meals 
    
    Do NOT allow yourself to go hungry - snack (right foods) if you are
    hungry 
    
    Eat so that you are satisfied after meals, not over full, not
    unsatisfied 
    
    Concentrate on your percentage of body fat more than your weight. The
    program has charts that tell you how to calculate your percentage of
    body fat. Men should shoot for 15% or less, women for 22% or less. 
                                                                   
    The program also emphasizes the importance of using self imaging and
    visualization of your desired result to program your self to work
    toward the desired goal. 
    
    

I too think that the Neuropsychology of Weight Control is a very good program.
It is the most positive approache that I have ever seen. I like to call it
"guilt free".

I would like to add to the description in .11 that the positive imagry is
a very important thing to note. It actually can produce changes in weight by
subtle changes in behavior without following all the aspects of the program.

I also find that drilling in to my mind the "12 characteristics of formerly
obese people" is another very powerful tool.

At "$65" it is a super bargin for people who are overweight.

With it's very positive approach it is "the only way to go" for people who have
a weight problem that is exacerbated by too many pressures in their life. By
the way, I think that is a major common problem among mormons. (see next reply).

Your brother,
Len

Hi Steve,

As one of the obese people that you have observed in your years in the church,
I want to make a comment about the general topic.

I believe that a strict following of the Word of Wisdom (remember moderation 
in all things), coupled with the admonition to "arise from thy bed early" and
"retire early", coupled with a deep and genuine faith in Jesus as a personal
friend and help should lead to a very happy healthy life.

Given that other churches do not provide nearly as much theological support to
a healthy life, then why does it seem that more mormons are overweight?

I believe that there are some real valid reasons for this phenomena.

1. Mormons don't smoke or drink alcohol. How many people actually use smoking 
as a weight control device. Lots of those that smoke.  How many people use 
alcohol as a means of coping with stress ("just to relax a little"), nearly
all those that drink any alcohol.  Hence living the higher priority points
of the WofW take away some important crutches to looking fit. (but do mormons
even being overweight have more heart attacks than those that do allow themselves
to smoke and drink? I don't think so).

2. Mormons have a lot of demands on their time. Many people both in and out of
the church avoid exercise with the excuse "I just don't have the time". But those
in the church actually do find that their church activities take up a lot more 
time than a similar population active in a different church.  In addition to 
the church time, there is the family time, with the church stress on family I
think that as a group the mormons spend more time with their families.  In
addition the church's counsel toward honesty in all we do leads many of the
members of the church to work more at their jobs than many others do.  Therefore
while "I don't have time" is still an excuse, it is harder for a mormon to 
find time to exercise than many others.

3. Mormons have higher expectations. One of the things that is a big difference
between Mormon theology and others is the level of expectation. Joseph Smith
was not kidding when he said "any religion that does not demand ultimate sac-
rifice can not offer ultimate salvation" Not only things like contributions
(both time and money), and expectations like "be ye therefore perfect.." but
also the broad manner that the church teachings and culture look at life, hence
people feel that they must be perfect in everything.

These three issues add up to STRESS!!!!! and the only outlets it seems are a
real deep relationship with diety or eating. Unfortunately many of us use the
eating crutch too much as we work toward the real goal of a living relationship
with God.

So my friend Steve (and others), I ask not that you excuse my obesity for indeed
it is wrong and against the teachings of the church too, but that you merely
overlook it and see my other qualities. That you accept me as a sinner and that
we still can support each other as we work to our common eternal goals.

I for one am very greatful that the church has kept me from using the crutches
of smoking and alcohol for I think their effects are far worse. I am even
greatful (when I am feeling good) for the higher goals of the church, for I know 
that I am growing in lots of good ways. I also know that the obesiety is not
part of my eternal soul, and hopefully not part of my mortal body for too much
longer.

Your brother and friend,

Len
 

    re. -1.
    
    I agree with what you are saying Len.
    
    The point I'd like to make in this discussion is that we look around
    and see people who don't live the WoW and we can tell from being around
    them.  If a person doesn't watch there weight, we can tell by looking
    at them.  If a person smokes or drinks alcohol, we can tell by the
    smells associated with that kind of consumption.  However, if a person
    lies or does not live the law of chastity, it is hard to tell just by
    their presence.  I guess, put another way, it is harder to tell if a
    person is living the "higher" law, yet we have a tough time living the
    "lower" law.  I think it is kind of ironic.
    
    scott  

    
    Re: .13 
    
    Hi Len,
    
    Boy, was that a note and a half!
    
    Well, first of all I want you to know that I do not consider you to be
    obese.  My intention was to gain a better feel for those who seem to 
    have trouble with there weight.  I'd say you have helped me understand 
    a bit more.  
    
    Second, I love you and everyone else and my concern does not lie with
    the physical apprarance of people, members or not, rather I fear for
    the lives of people because of the silent danger that being overweight
    poses to all.  I want to apologize for any offense I may have caused 
    anyone to suffer.  
    
    I do accept you for who you are and I'm happy to be your friend.  We
    all have our faults as you said and so life goes on and we must learn
    to love and help eachother throughout our entire lives.
    
    "Endure to the end."
    
    Unconditionally Loving,
    
    Steve

RE: .15

Hi Steve, 

I have no doubt of your friendship and love nor did I ever.  Note 13 was written
addressed to you since you wrote the original note.  It was of course meant for 
everyone to read.  It therefore addressed the general issue of dealing with 
people that are too fat and used myself as an example.

RE: Whether I am obese or not. I have been blessed with friends and a person-
ality that does indeed help people overlook my obesity, But I am afraid that
medically speaking a person 6 feet tall, weighing 280 lps with a 44 inch waist
has to be termed obese. And I am working on it, but not too hard since I am 
trying to keep my priorities straight.

With love,

Len

    Howdy, folks!  Just want to point out that there are a lot of people
    in this world who are normal being larger than other folks.  Some
    of it is genetics.  I think it's kind of a shame when we disdain
    folks that are bigger, smaller, small-boned, large-boned, whatever
    ...  Just because a person is stocky/thin does *not* mean they don't/do
    live the W of W.  Even if they are not living the W of W, seems
    to me a higher law necessitates reserving judgment.
    
    Have a good one!    
    
    Steve

    Another fatty weighs in!  (I really couldn't resist that.)
    
    Before I wallow in this topic, let me state my belief in the word
    of wisdom and in the importance of maintaining our bodies, these
    temples.  I love to cook and eat, I also enjoy aerobics and biking.
    Time and circumstance do not permit me to walk as much as I'd like,
    but that's another pleasure.
    
    Let's not forget that we live in a time and culture which glorifies
    not only those things which are of lesser importance (and even evil)
    but are also unrealistic.  We are constantly presented with a standard
    of physical beauty which is, as a standard, a lie.  Models and
    entertainment celebrities are photographed using techniques to
    enhance their attraction; many use cosmetic surgery as well.  The
    recent flap over a cover photo composed of one person's head and
    another's body is extreme, but not unrelated to the common practice
    of photographic enhancement.
    
    Doubts?  Catch an unposed shot of some of the lovelies of today.  
    Still lovely, at least some of them, but no longer at that airbrushed
    and backlighted state of physical near-perfection.
    
    C.S. Lewis, in THE SCREWTAPE LETTERS,  made mention of the diabolical 
    effects of encouraging women [in particular] to accept and even
    worship as their standard the physical state of early youth.  I
    think of that when I see ads with statements like - I won't age
    gracefully - I intend to fight it every step of the way!  My comment,
    and lose!
    
    Another digression:  In an article written years ago on the dangers 
    of sunning, I first read, and have often read in similar articles
    since, "the tanned young lovelies of today are the wrinkled old
    prunes of tomorrow."  Well, brethren, the pale young beauties of today
    are also the wrinkled old prunes of tomorrow.  I exaggerate to make
    this point:  While it's true that sun ages skin faster, time will do 
    its part and very few ladies or gentlemen of, say, 71, will provide 
    serious physical competition to those of, say, 16 or 25.
    
    Many men and women today consider themselves fat measured against
    the cultural standard.  In my own younger slimmer days, I felt that
    after my weight went over 110 pounds (I'm 5'6") that I was never
    really slender again and that when I weighed over 130, I was fat.  I
    decline to state my current weight - since removal of my thyroid
    (I like to quote President Kimball and say, "I went to the city
    and fell among cut-throats") - but can you say "hopelessly humongous!"
    ;)
    
    I was a young woman (and not yet a member of the Church, I hasten
    to add) the last time the mini-skirt showed up and I recall reading,
    and agreeing with, the statement that no woman wearing larger than
    size 10 should wear a short skirt.  When this fashion made its
    re-appearance, I was somewhat taken aback to read that no one over size
    3 should attempt it.  I mention this and the following to illustrate
    how our culture is shaping our belief in the "perfect" size and weight.
                                 
    According to my reading of magazines, books and stories of the 1940's 
    and 1950's, the ideal woman's size was 12.  During my youth in the
    1960's and 1970's, size 10 was mentioned, with size 8 beginning to 
    appear.  Now as we approach the 1990's, size 3 is the standard?  
    How realistic, not to mention healthy, can such a standard be?
    
    Well, having gotten all that out, I feel better.  In fact, I think
    I'll log off and go eat breakfast!
    
    Regards,
    aq
    
                  

    Seems to me that in the days of Renoir standards of beauty for women
    were also much different than for today ...
    
    Steve

This was posted on the internet LDS mailing distribution.
    
From:	GILROY::"lds-request"  6-DEC-1989 11:43
To:	gilroy::lds 
Subj:	Article from Newspaper 


Article from the Sacramento Bee (12/6/89)

By Janny Scott
Los Angeles Times

 A study of nearly 10,000 active Mormons in California credits clean living -
 no tobacco, regular exercise and a good night's sleep - with some of the
 largest reductions in risk of death from cancer and cardiovascular disease
 ever reported.

 The study, by an epidemiologist at the University of California, Los Angeles
 School of Public Health, found that middle aged high priests adhering to
 those habits had just 34% the normal cancer death rate for their age group
 and just 14% of the normal death rate from heart and blook vessel disease.

 Mormon high priests are certain long-term Mormons who have risen to the
 highest rank of the church's lay priesthood.

 Their wives, too, enjoyed comparable health advantages.  Their rate of death
 from cancer was little more than half that of comparable women, and their
 rate of death from cardiovascular disease was a third of the normal rate.

 "If people want to minimize their mortality rate and maximize their
 longevity, this is certainly one way of doing it," James E. Enstrom, the
 researcher, said. "I'm not a Mormon, and I don't recommend that people have
 to become Mormons to do this."  His findings were published in today's issue
 of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

 Religiously active Mormons abstain from tobacco, alcohol and caffeine under
 guidelines written down in their Doctrine and Covenant.  Mormon doctrine also
 emphasizes family life, education, a well-balanced diet and good health
 practices in general.

 The priests studied by Enstrom may also have benefited from their
 participation in so-called social networks, such as their marriages and the
 church.  Past research has linked social networks to longevity, apart from
 other health practices.

 "I think there's a social support factor at work there," George K. Jarvis, a
 University of  Alberta sociologist, said.  "There is ample research that if
 we participate in groups that are meaningful to us, we benefit in health."

 To see whether his findings could be reproduced inthe general population,
 Enstrom also analyzed a comparable group of white, non-smoking, church-going
 men and women in Alameda County from all religions.  He found similar health
 gains.

 "These rsults demonstrate substantial progress inpreventionof cancer and
 other diseases in one well-defined population, and they suggest a lifestyle
 that could result in a major reduction in cancer mortality, as well as
 mortality in general," Enstrom wrote.

 Jarvis, who has published a reiew of much of the controversial, past research
 on the effects of religion on rates of illness and death, described Enstrom's
 findings as remarkable for the magnitude of the health benefit he documented.

 "I think it's great when anybody finds anything that could lead to extension
 of an active and happy life," Jarvis said.  "If there are some aspects of
 life among Mormons, or any other group, that people might want  to adopt,
 everybody is happy to try this out."

 Enstrom, who began studying Mormons in the early 1970's based his findings on
 responses to detailed questionnaires about lifestyle, diet and medical
 history mailed  out in late 1979 to Mormon high priests and their wives.
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is my car the only one in America where | Justin "Ice Cream Monster" Masters
someone breaks in and turns up my radio | 
every time I park? - Steven Wright      |  [email protected]
    

                             Alcoholic
    
    An alcoholic can neither live with alcohol nor wothout it.
    
    No alcoholic is really anonymous.
    
    There's now an AA for midget alcohlics. It's called aa.
    
    An alcoholic is not one who drinks too much, but one woh can't drink
    enough. 
    
    The typical alcoholic insists he only drinks on special occasions, like
    when the sun goes down every day.
    
    AN alcoholic claims a little too much liquor is just about right.
    
    These are just some quotations to think about that I got from
    different people. I realize that there are people who are struggling
    and need some aid in this area. I pray for these people that they
    may be delivered from it IN JESUS NAME!!!!!
    
    
    
                                  Ray

    Rich,  I realize that this is a relatively old note and hope that you
    continue to follow responses to it.  I have recently returned to DEC
    after a three year absense, and JUST  found this conference!!  Glad I
    did!  It's been a real stimulus in my returning to Church activity.
    
    Similar studies to that which you mention in Note 295 have also been
    done concerning Seventh Day Adventists with similar results.  It has
    been found that, due to their lifestyle they have a "longer than
    normal" life expectancy.
    
    Also, another contributing factor to longevity is prayer.  It has been
    noted that prayer on a routine basis has similar biological responses
    to Yoga and other relaxation techniques (TM, etc.).  Of course, we know
    the source of the peace we feel during prayer, but the biological and
    emotional benefits of "confession" and "discussion" of our innermost
    fears, doubts, gratitude, etc. keep us in an emotionally healthy state.
    
    Once we have internalized the Word of Wisdom and the commandment to
    pray always, we gain such a sense of "self" and our relationship with
    Our Heavenly Father that we really appear to "have our act together"
    and our trust in the right places.
    
    Marsha Shaw

Hi Marsha,

Welcome to the conference!!

Due to heavy work pressure, Rich isn't currently active in the conference.
Thanks for your comments, Marsha.  I especially liked your comment about
internalizing the Word of Wisdom and prayer and then finding "self".  It
is so important that we live the commandments because *we* have decided
that we want to, not because our parents or our spouses or our Bishops
want us to.  We develop high self esteem when *we* make decisions about
our lives and then have success with those decisions.  We develop low
self esteem when others make decisions about our lives. 

Allen

================================================================================
Note 364.11                What is life in Utah like?                   11 of 12
LUNER::PIMENTEL                                      31 lines   7-MAY-1992 12:15
                           -< Let's not be deceived >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                <<< Note 364.9 by ROCK::LEIGH "Feed My Sheep" >>>

From:	DECPA::"[email protected]" "Seth Leigh"  6-MAY-1992 19:29:21.57
To:	rock::leigh
CC:	
Subj:	Re: Interested in giving your experience about this, either pro or con
        what Paul said?

I have seen things on occasion that I thought
were really stupid, such as some silly Pharisaical Mormon person getting
upset about the fact that some coffee-FLAVOURED jelly beans were in a sample of
mixed-flavour jelly beans she had bought at the BYU bookstore.  But, these 

Seth Leigh

Allen, thanks for this forward.  I would find a problem with someone putting
in coffee-FLAVOURED jelly beans.  It may or not contain a percentage of the
"real thing", that's irrelevant as I am striving to live the word of wisdom.

And if I were the follow this path, I might find myself one day wondering
why I am no longer active in the church or for that matter in religion.

After all it was no "big-deal" to eat "coffee-flavoured" jelly beans.  

Then maybe some other aspect of our religion could be slightly circumvented,
because "a little won't hurt."  Or will it?

Just a thought.

-- John.

Hi John,

You have a good point.  If the jelly beans actually had coffee in them, I would
not eat them, even if the amount were small.  I wouldn't be upset with the
bookstore, though, because what they carry is their business.  What I buy is my
business.

I think Seth is assuming the coffee flavor was artificial rather than real
coffee, because he put the word "flavored" in caps.  I would guess that the
flavor would be artificial, because I would expect that real coffee would be
too expensive to put in cheap candy.

My personal view is that the Word of Wisdom concerns taking coffee into my
body, even if in small amounts.  I don't think that taking artificial
coffee-flavor is against the Word of Wisdom.

Some people would say that there is in danger in taking things with an
artificial coffee flavor, because he or she might get to like the flavor and
then advance to the real thing.  They have a point.  Temptation does frequently
begin with small things.  If people feel they would be tempted to take the
real thing, then I think they should stay from artificial flavors that are
like the real thing.

However, there is a more important principle involved.  The purpose of
the Word of Wisdom (IMHO) is not to provide us a list of things we do and
don't do.  The purpose is to (a) allow us to show our love for the Lord by
living his commandments that concern our diet, and (b) to have better health
because we have followed the Lord not just because we have followed a rule.

If I believe the Lord has forbidden certain things in my diet, then if I love
Him, I will avoid those things, and whether or not I like the flavor of those
things is of secondary importance.

Allen

    I would fault the bookstore (a little bit) because aas a lifelong
    practising mormon, I have never acquired a taste for coffee, I have on
    occasion had a candy or something that had a taste somewhat like the
    smell of coffee so I assume that that is the flavor. Frankly I don't
    like it at all. 
    
    If I got some jelly beans with those mixed in from a typical store "in
    the mall" then I would say nothing just carefully pick out any that had
    the same color so as not to get that unpleasant taste again. I would
    recognize that our "sub culture" is a small minority so such a store
    selling that flavor in a mixture is appropriate to them. If on the
    other hand it was the BYU bookstore, I would assume that they did not
    realize what they had done. I would seriously consider talking to the
    manager of that department and asking that they consider fixing the
    issue. This difference is because to the BYU Bookstore the LDS is not
    some minority sub culture but is the overwhelming majority.  In a
    similar sense if someone comes to my home, they can with great
    confidence expect that there will be no coffee (or several other)
    flavors in inything I might serve. If on the other hand I had guests
    that "needed" coffee for me to provide it would be an exception out of
    deference to them.
    
    In otherwords, I have a different expectation in BYU Bookstore than in
    ASU bookstore.
    
    Len
    

Hi Len,

After thinking about this, I agree with you Len, that if the jelly beans
actually had coffee in them, I would be concerned since the store is owned
by the Church.  If the jelly beans contained an artificial coffee-like flavor
but no coffee itself, then I wouldn't be concerned about the coffee factor,
but I might be concerned about the use of food additives.

Allen

    I hope that non-LDS are not reading this note.  Word of Wisdom covers
    "hot drinks".  You would have to boil down hundreds of said jelly beans,
    extract the "coffee", heat that extract, and then drink it.
    
    Coffee flavoring in anything is not hot drinks.  Besides there is more 
    caffeine in a chocolate bar.  
    
    Chalk this discussion up with the one about "how many angels dancing
    on the head of a pin."   Word of Wisdom fanatics have taken this
    wonderful health guideline to remarkable absurdities.
    
    Yet, how many LDS drink caffeine free Sanka, and coffee-flavored Pero, etc.?
     
    
    Paul

Hi Paul,

Let me see, each angel is... a pin head is...  My estimate is that ...

Current Church policy is that coffee and tea should not be used.  I'm not
sure what guidelines (if any) the Bishops and Stake Presidencies have relative
to "caffeine free" Sanka or coffee-flavored drinks.  I'm also not sure if
the current policy applies to coffee in both solid and liquid form, since
D&C 89 refers to "hot drinks".  I've assumed it applies to coffee and tea in
any form.

I think that coffee in any amount is against the Word of Wisdom.  Unless the
Church specifies limits, its statements about no coffee apply (IMHO) to
coffee in any amount.  I don't think this is a case of nit picking or counting
angels.  I think it is a case of taking statements from the Church at face
value (of course I'm a left-brained engineer that gets caught up with words
more than the meaning of words...).  If the Church says no coffee, then to me
that is what it means, period.  If it says no coffee in amounts greater than
X, then that is what it means, period.  As far as I know, the Church policy
is no coffee.

As you said, Paul, the Word of Wisdom is a wonderful guide to better health.
But, in the case of tobacco, alcohol, tea, and coffee it is more than a guide,
it is an absolute prohibition.  I'm not referring to the original revelation
given to Joseph Smith and recorded in D&C 89; I'm referring to current Church
policy as formulated under the Prophet Brigham Young and in effect since then.

Caffeine is another matter.  The Lord hasn't (at least not publicly; I don't
know anything about revelations that haven't been given out publicly) said
why coffee and tea shouldn't be used.  So we can't say it is because of
caffeine.  Thus, caffeine itself is not part of the Word of Wisdom (IMHO), and
we are free to make our own judgments about it.

All of this brings me back to my earlier statements, that to me the important
thing is whether jelly beans or X or Y or Z have real coffee in them or have
artificial flavors.  As far as I know, artificial coffee-like flavors aren't
prohibited--just the real thing.

Allen

    Now here's some room for clarification.  The prohibition against coffee
    and tea - is it only for the hot drink form?  Or, does it include other
    applications?
    
    I do not like coffee or tea - so no big deal for me.  But coffee in any
    other form, candy, flavorings are not hot drinks so therefore exempt.
    By the way anyone out there like mocha ice cream, mocha is coffee
    flavoring.
    
    As for caffeine, there is no Church prohibition for any
    caffeine flavored drinks.  The culture has imposed these restrictions.
    
    When a returned missionary friend told me that during his mission in
    Australia in the 1960's there was a heavy debate raging among the
    missionaries on whether coke did or did not come under the prohibition.
    A visting General Authority, N. Eldon Tanner, hosted the missionaries
    and had coke served at the meal.
    
    I, very occasionally, drink coke. But really don't like the effect of
    caffeine on me, so normally avoid all caffeince laced drinks.
    
    AS for me the WofW is hot drinks (coffee and tea- but not herb teas)
    and tobacco and alcohol.  Everything else is debatable. 
    
    
    paul

    My point is very slightly different. I was talking about the BYU
    Bookstore showing a lack of sensitivity to their market. Whether or not
    the flavor was artificial, I think that coffee flavored anything there
    is out of place. And Paul I don't mean to say that the Bookstore should
    be in the place of providing experiences or rights ot choose, but
    rather it should provide a comfortable welcome atmosphere for the
    culture that it attracts (mormons).  There are plenty of places very
    close to the campus that folks could go to get coffee flavored
    (artificial of course) candy and I would not trouble my mind one second
    over whether they were "sinning". I would only hope that in one small
    place of the world, I could wander comfortably not having to watch what
    I buy so closely to have it in line with what I want for myself (and
    family).
    
    Len
    

Oh, I see what you were saying, Len.  Thanks for the clarification.

Allen